digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

EXPOSED: Bush Administration's Illegal Dissent Hiding Manual (PDF)

aclu.org — Title says it all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cmiller1, on 10/11/2007, -21/+218Let's get these monsters out of office so I no longer have to feel ashamed to be an American.
    • codegeek2004, on 10/11/2007, -3/+48I second that motion
      • knobidy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31Motion has been seconded, all in favor?
        • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28Aye
          • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29Motion passed. We no long recognize the authority of George W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney or the administration employed by the current executive branch of the US federal government.
          • DubbedOver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23To codegeek2004, Eivo and zephc - Gentleman, I would like to make a proposal that will help you further your already outstanding careers. I will give you all $250,000 each toward your campaign if you reject this motion. I hope you understand that keeping quiet is an important aspect as the public is not always acting in it's best interest.

            (don't you wish all lobbyist's could be dugg down like I will be?).
          • scolby33, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6We still have to recognize Cheney, hes not in the executive branch, remember??
          • Bigboomer223, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5AYE!
          • themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm surprised that no one cut in and ruined that string of replies
          • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@themaster...like you just did? lol
        • siszam, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15The people who replace Bush will simply pick up where he left off. Once you lose freedoms you rarely get them back. Both sides have agendas and they work together. The Dems didn't end the war did they? The Republicans haven't secured the border have they? All the same.
          • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -9/+13This is a classic deceptive right-wing talking point, designed to sow cynicism and depress turnout at elections, which always favors the status quo. The Democrats do not have the power to end the war - they do not have a cloture majority in the Senate. There is a vast difference between the current Democrats, who represent the center of their party's ideological spectrum, and the current folks in power, who are so far outside the mainstream of traditional conservative thought in this country that the GOP they took control of would be virtually unrecognizable to Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan.

            This is not about the traditional US Right vs US Left- this is about a fringe radical minority who took over the country, who disdain democracy and our republican system of government, who pursue a corrupt, ends-justify-the-means path that eclipses even the worst excesses of prior administrations. This is not a traditional American political struggle, this is a battle for the very survival of our democracy - and those who, like Ralph Nader before them, pretend that there is no difference between Bush and the Democrats, are not only deliberate liars, they do not have the best interests of our nation at heart.
          • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5This is true. The Dems and Reps are partners in crime who have been playing good-cop/bad-cop against the American people for decades. That's why you should vote for the one man that both sides hate; the one man who will snatch their power away from them and give it back to the American people where it belongs; the one man who will reinstate the Constitution and bind all future would be despots under it. Who is that man???? Why RON PAUL of course!!!!

            Plus, the thought of another Clinton after 28 years of either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House is SICKENING!!!!

            (12 years w/ Bush Sr. as VP then P; followed by 8 years of Clinton; Followed by 8 years of Bush Jr. = 28 long ***** years!!!!)
    • flernk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+46The money line:

      "On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken IMMEDIATELY to minimize the demonstrator's effect."

      Yeah, we wouldn't want the American public to be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. For heaven's sake, just imagine what would happen if crowds were allowed to put forth a group opinion that got media attention! *cough*BostonTeaParty*cough*
      • pwill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
        • TJATL, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2Congress shall make a law that can either imprison or exile a person when they attempt to quote the constitution and fail.

          The paper, is not from Congress, and is not a law.

          You just got learned!
        • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@Nitrodist - "The paper, is not from Congress, and is not a law." S/he's referring to the paper that is the subject of this story, not the paper that contains the 1st Amendment. The Advance Manual is not from Congress, and it is not the law. Correct!

          YOU'RE wrong ... shut up.
    • minox, on 10/11/2007, -27/+3You should feel ashamed, but it has nothing to do with being American.
    • JohnnyMi25, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22Hell I'm ashamed to be your neighbor (to the north)
      • Xyleene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Bah, look at a Harper event or press conference... this is all standard procedure here too!
    • stints, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15We should have something similar to the million man march against Bush, lets see them do anything about that.

      now how to get that organized? any thoughts?
      • minox, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Yeah, call World Can't Wait, but tell them to cool it with the Marxist overtones.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Yea, Stints, the key is someone actually having the guts to stand up and get the thing in motion.

        I'm all for joining the revolution, but the men who lead fights for freedom in this country, always seem to get assassinated.
    • jostheller, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Yeah, I cant wait to get these monsters out of office... so I can start feeling ashamed to be American, because of the next set of a-holes you guys elect into office.

      Do not believe the lie... The Republicans and Democrats in office run the government (in general) in exactly the same damn way... The government has been ran the same way for the last 100 years, and if you really want change, vote in someone who will make that change. Even if that means "throwing your vote away". Or put another way... vote Ron Paul!
      • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4 What we should do is just face the facts that the REAL runners of this country are the corporations...Not the sudo-two party system.
        Why not just vote in Time Warner and Microsoft and be done with it?
        //Sarcasim}||
        • yournightmare, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"Not the sudo-two party system"

          --Lol. Too much time using Linux, dude.
      • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6 What we should do is just face the facts that the REAL runners of this country are the corporations...Not the sudo-two party system.
        Why not just vote in Time Warner and Microsoft and be done with it?
        //Sarcasim}||
      • t0ken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I wish I could digg you up twice. Good form.

        Remember kids: The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL.
    • donatj, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7Did you actually look at the document? It seemed very thought out, don't harm them, don't over react. I mean this would be news if it had like "Aim for the head" or something. Get a life people, they're ensuring your freedoms with this document, their allowing you to protest. Think you'd get away with protesting in an *actual* tyrannical government as you people seem to think this is? No way in hell, you'd be put down on the spot.
      • Surreal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Perhaps you should read it again, they may be ensuring that no physical harm comes to you, but not "freedoms" as you state. They are trying to instead disrupt people's constitutional right to assembly and protest.
        • UglieJosh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yes, we get it already. There are other countries that have it worse than us. There are countries that illegally jail you and censor you if you have opposing views. Oh, wait, that is us.

          So, your point is that other countries kill you for things like this, rather than jail you?

          Well, a great man once said "live free or die."
          • hoop6, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3You just expressed a view...you must be running from the thought police as I type this.
          • patrickloggins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2.....HARD.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6War is Peace.
        Freedom is Slavery.
        Ignorance is Strength.
      • contrite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3redacted
    • sniffer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5You should not be ashamed to be American. That's not right. Americans should be proud of their history, but should also not be so manipulated by marketing and the media. You should look to your past and learn from it. Never again a cowboy as president, at least if his own horse is more intelligent than he is...
    • CDoug03, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1You asshats need to read the document before commenting on it. This is probably the most civil way to deal with civil disobedience. This document is not much different than removing hecklers/streakers from sporting events. As long as they aren't posing a threat or disrupting the event you just suck it up and deal with it....
    • missusjones, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY;YOU HAVE NO GOVERNMENT:

      http://carolynbaker.org/archives/happy-independence-dayyou-have-no-government-by-carolyn-baker
  • cmiller1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+150It's too bad the majority of the document has been redacted.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43Does it seriously count as releasing a document if it's all blank?
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25The parts they left are bad enough. I'm usually a bit more skeptical but it is clear now, this is no longer a democracy. If you do not agree with this government, you are not to be heard.
      • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2How the hell can you say that without seeing the parts that were redacted? You're merely speculating on what the content was that you didn't see. It could be good or it could be horrific but we'll never know because it's not there.

        And don't you think it's pretty much standard operating procedure for either party in charge? They don't want to be embarrassed in public and have it show up on the news. My suspicion is that there's a Democratic manual with much the same intent in it as well.
        • TheAcclaimed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5We have the right to protest. They are trying to separate and move us because we don't agree with them? Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, it doesn't make a difference, these practices are wrong.
    • melvs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20The parts left alone are more then enough to show a direct violation of our 1st amendment rights, with no doubt this is a a figurative '*****' being taken on our countries principles.
    • contrite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2redacted
  • staffrocket, on 10/11/2007, -35/+13Oh man I just pushed out a dumper in my pants.
  • eyefork, on 10/11/2007, -22/+11C'mon guys didn't you read, "Sensitive-Do Not Copy". Then again this is the Bush Administration, so I guess you can do whatever the hell ya please!
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13it'd be great if the citizens could do whatever they want...
      • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6No, that would be anarchy.
        • cyberdependent, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10So... you're saying anarchy is not great?
          • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Yes... I really don't want to have to sling some pistols on my hips just to go get some groceries.
          • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3^Only on Digg...
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I know digg said they would fight for the encryption key. But what if the FBI called up digg. Id imagin if they knew how to use the tubes and found this there would be fbi swarming the digg office. You know to stop the "terrorists" from getting a hold of this.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Actually, eyefork, yes, I believe that I have the right to do whatever I damn well please to secure my rights.

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," - Deceleration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3D of I is not legally binding document, Constitution is.


        Also, grown-ups understand the concept of trade-offs - in order to enjoy the benefits of belonging to a society, there are certain responsibilities and sacrifices that one must make. Only little children - and libertarians - think exclusively in terms of "how can I get mine, mine, mine!"
        • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Besides, I only ascribe to the principles in the Acceleration of Independence" ... the "Deceleration of Independence" is too slow.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Which rights may you secure by any means? My understanding is that there are very few rights you may secure by doing whatever you "damn well please," and I'm glad for it ... there are too many people that couldn't care less about others' rights, and if everyone had the right to do whatever they "damn well pleased" to secure their own rights, chances are, somebody else's rights wouldn't be secure.
  • duckrank, on 10/11/2007, -9/+57Look up Redaction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction

    It's only used to remove irrelevant information to the case at hand. For a document such as this that outlines the procedures of the President at public events, the redacted statements may deal with his personal security. It's understandable that those statements would be removed.

    While it is possible that they decided to remove relevant information, I doubt it. The document is fairly self incriminating in its current form.
    • halavais, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Um, that's just silly. Documents are regularly over-redacted. There is a long history of court cases over redaction and FOI.
    • faskippy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Hey, I have this bridge for sale... If you think it is only used to remove IRRELEVANT information, you are as gullible as they come. Sure, they wouldn't publish things that deal with his personal security. But I doubt that there would be a need to discuss that in this type of document anyway, other than to say, oh, something like, cooperate fully with secret service, cause his security is THEIR job. Get it?
      • oreo2123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7ROFL...you are my new favorite person...I guess all I can say is: ditto.

        Oh and, that bridge is in good condition, right?
    • Twango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Your reply is very reasonable. That doesn't mean that the redactions are reasonable. These sharks don't think like most of us.
  • canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -21/+79is this really illegal? although i find the official guidelines of organizing 'fake' anti-demonstrator groups a bit unsettling, is anything in here really illegal? or even worthy of such an inflammatory title?
    • irieKEN, on 10/11/2007, -13/+14IANAL, but I don't really see anything terribly illegal here either; I believe that if someone tried to get into a U2 concert with a big sign that said "BONO'S A BITCH", they'd probably be removed too.

      Can we get back to dealing with the blatantly illegal things that this administration is doing?
      • fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22Ya know... a performance in a privately owned stadium isn't quite the same thing as a visit by a public official to a public place.
        • TJATL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Bush rarely makes public appearances. It's not like he's out in Central Park one weekend and making a speech at Niagra falls the next weekend. Usually when he makes a speech it is done within the confines of a private organization. Most of the time it's some sort of fund raising event or tied in directly with some policy.

          Quit being a sheep, quit feeding off the propaganda. I'm not saying I'm 100% Pro Bush, but if you remain calm and look with an open mind you can see the propaganda that flows from both sides. It's just that one side, the left, has more uneducated and poor supporters that are good sheep.
        • EruLabs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2When ever someone 'sees' the president, he is making a 'public appearance'. I pay his salary. He is a public SERVANT.

          You act like a private citizen like Bono in a private stadium should _maybe_ have the right to kick out people booing over the music, while saying (at the same time), that the President, a civil servant, should also _maybe_ have the right to block demonstrations.

          Where do you stand TJATL? I hope you see the difference. You cant take a picture of me when im walking around. If I was a CIVIL SERVANT, you should be obliged.
      • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17that argument would make sense in the democratic republic of U2, but a concert isn't the same. protest and dissent are what keeps a government working for the people instead of the other way around. it's what this country was founded on.
      • hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Our tax dollars pay for the President's travel, salary, lodgings, security and other arrangements. For him to take tax money and use it to fund events that only benefit one political party is unconstitutional. He can either let everyone in, or no one in. Bush needs to hear the people that disagree with him. No wonder he is baffled by his own unpopularity. He is carefully shielded from any opposing points of view.
        • candafilm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@hipnerd

          Why not? Cheney flew to Sandpoint, Idaho to promote the rep. as a member of the Republican party, guess who paid for the trip? The people of Sandpoint, Idaho.
        • fringet1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I went to a school in Sandpoint.....no seriously... it was called Ascent. Anyone else?

          D
      • okalex, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0What does your willingness to do anal have to do with the discussion at hand?
    • bongo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17At the very least, it's extremely unethical. But entirely unsurprising at the same time.
    • ncr100, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Yeah it's illegal to suppress free speech in a publicly funded non-electoral venue. Wearing anti bush t-shirts is reason enough for staffers to get the police to arrest somebody according to the manual.
      • TJATL, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Name the last publicly funded venue were demonstrations were suppressed?
        • cjl1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6How about the streets of Manhattan during the GOP convention when mass arrests were made by sweeping up anyone who was demonstrating or looked like they might be? In nearly all cases, charges were either never pressed or dropped.

          From Wikipedia:
          Mass arrests and illegal detentions (for which the City of New York was fined) led Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) to comment that "The performance of police was decidedly a mixed one. While hundreds of thousands of people were able to make their voices heard, the right to protest was severely undermined by the mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators and bystanders, the pervasive surveillance of lawful demonstrators, and the illegal fingerprinting and prolonged detention of [more than] 1500 people charged with mostly minor offenses. This compromised their Constitutional right to protest." In most cases, charges were dropped after protesters were released. The New York Times reported on August 24, 2005, that after requests were made by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the Justice Department decided to investigate whether or not the civil rights of those arrested had been violated. Those investigations are ongoing.
      • mablco, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1i dont think it said that anywhere.
      • alai, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1It doesn't say that anywhere in the document. The whole point of the doc is to place pro-Bush people near demonstrators in the hopes that the demonstrators wont seem so concentrated. There is nothing at all illegal about that. Dugg this story down as inaccurate.
        • hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It is illegal to use government funds to benefit one political party. That's a violation of the Hatch Act. It is also illegal to ban people from government-sponsored public events based on their political views, which this manual clearly advocates. If Bush wants to meet the public, he needs to take the good with the bad.
    • seangp, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3It's illegal in the sense that the copy has been "illegally" copied and distributed outside of the White House - that's all. Countering demonstrations isn't illegal.
    • mtbaldyred, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"worthy of such an inflammatory title?" well, the manual does show how to hide dissent. At publicly funded events, presumably in order to maintain political support for a politician. Of course there are other things in the manual, not sure what exactly, as much of that has been removed. I guess we'll never know if the thing deserves a title that is more inflammatory, or less blunt.
    • NBKras, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I think that the real, deeper issue at hand is whether or not free speech requires access to be effective. This manual doesn't suggest eliminating dissident speech at political events--there is no stipulation calling on orderly protesters to be arrested, for example--but it does clearly demand the blocking out and squelching of speech unfavorable towards the president.

      Is this illegal, then? Reasonable people can disagree, but it's not a slam-dunk case with our current precedents. This is a sensationalist headline, to be sure, but how else do you get dugg these days? I think there are broader questions, however, that need to be answered first, especially in light of the immutable Internet.
    • ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Ofcourse they will hide dissent. The manual says that avoid physical contact and only try to drown out their voice. If they fail then the demonstrators win. Thats the pint in any rally. you have supporters and people against it. This article is stupid and it goes to show that we just have to bash Bush on anything possible. I mean I hate the guy, but this beats Bush at stupidity and thats saying something
  • HypocriteDigg, on 10/11/2007, -12/+17I wonder what the 'blacked out' parts said?
  • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -13/+63@canewediggit
    uuumm...its essentially censorship of citizens views, and spreding propaganda by setting up groups to counter such protesters by chanting 'USA!USA!'. its spreading disinformation and should be brought to light at the very least. i dont know if thats actually illegal, but its good the ACLU is bringing this to light so people know that alot of these 'Bush supporter' groups are really just people being paid to make Bush look good.
    • cusoman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Where does it say they are being paid? I don't see such a statement anywhere in that document.
      • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4that was a slight assumption on my part. while it does say 'use volunteers' it also says that the RNC will cover your expenses if you plan the event, so I guess it could be viewed either way.
        • cusoman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I think it's a pretty large assumption. Paying people using government money, or even RNC raised funds, for the express purpose of providing such a cover is a serious accusation, especially in the case of it being tax payer's dollars.
        • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4uuuumm...our government has been paying to spread propaganda for years. how is that a serious accusation? see Karl Rove
          • Surreal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm with mdkoch84
          • TJATL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0see the democrats as well. it's not like they are innocent of the same thing. moveon.org....roflmao
          • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i didnt mean to say iit was only the Republicans. i do agree, both sides do it....see Republicrats
    • Gryffydd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5And yet it's exactly the thing you could expect any politician to do if given the opportunity. They do this because Politics suck, not just because the Bush Administration sucks.
      • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2they dont do it b/c 'Politics suck', they do it so they ensure they keep they're power and keep a good public image.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Gryffydd, I'm curious what your alternative to "Politics" is - dictatorship?
    • Adamness, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4It's not censorship. Censorship would be if the demonstrators were told to shut up and go away, or forced to shut up and go away. Nowhere in this document does it say demonstrators cannot demonstrate, it just says to minimize or counterbalance their impact on the event. I don't like it anymore than most of you do, but I'm afraid this isn't illegal. It's immoral and shady, but is anyone surprised the administration does something immoral and shady?
      • fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ahem... FREE SPEECH ZONE

        ??
      • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@adam, did you read the document?! read the top of page 35. then come back and tell me that is not censorship.
        "ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO MINIMIZE THE DEMONSTRATOR'S EFFECT". this is an example of the specific protocol outlined to make demonstrators "shut up and go away". also, just b/c its common place for Bushco to do shady things doesnt mean we should sit around and not do anything about it!
        • IniNew, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1"ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO MINIMIZE THE DEMONSTRATOR'S EFFECT" does not mean "shut up and go away". That would be eradicating their effect.
        • TJATL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0There is a difference between protesting, there are many forms of it, and disrupting the peace. If a "protest" disrupts the event, i.e. non stop heckler, pie in the face, etc, your "right to protest" is void. You KNOW there are limits to the rights, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't own a tank, etc etc. Think before you speak!
        • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2yeah, but if you read related articles you will see people were removed for WEARING ANTI-BUSH SHIRTS! see link below. completely peaceful and not disrupting the peace.

          http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html
    • mablco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2if your are going to reply to someone, reply to their comment. i know i know, its not worth saying something if no one reads it..
      • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2exactly, and thats why the new comment system sucks.
  • antineocon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13This is nuts, can't say i'm surprised though. This doesn't seem right. We are we going to do something?
    • sunshinex, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No, no you're not. Good little Americans take what they get from the current administration and like it.
  • crashbang, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44Well I think [redacted] and further more I[redacted] and in conclusion [redacted] off.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8The whole document has been redacted. Anyone know why having a group of idiots chanting USA over and over near protester is illegal? It's annoying and crappy, but not illegal.
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11its called propaganda comrade.
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Chanting USA over and over is supposed to be a tactic used to deliberately drown out any dissenting views. I don't now that it is illegal but it is unconstitutional on a level I'm sure.
  • nplace1, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1Duplicate, not entirely accurate.
  • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23It's ok, he'll just pardon whoever made the manual. Problem solved.
    • Nutmegan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Now if Bush would just pardon Hannibal and B.A., he could regain our respect.
  • Zaeyde, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23And this was only done in 2002.
    Imagine what has evolved from this.
  • Dubbsacc, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4redacted
  • kgool, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7I am sure other Presidents never did anything similar.
    • Crimsoneer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I happen to know your wrong.
      • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Well.... "you're" wrong sir. I went to an event hosted by President Clinton and I had to walk through volunteer screeners as well who checked my ticket.
    • elscorcho717, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0im pretty sure that was sarcasm
  • Zoltair, on 10/11/2007, -23/+13Lame, nothing illegal here, just the same kind of guidelines any company would have to maintain some state of control over any situation. Lame... You guys are way to paranoid.....
    • JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Wow! You understand that this is not a private company right? You understand that the president is a SERVANT of the people right?
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Do *you* understand that the president is still a private individual, that these are private events and that the "Advance" team is made up of civilian volunteers? This is *exactly* like denying service to rowdy patrons in a restaurant.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8USA LLC!
    • durrr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3...or maybe you're way too complacent.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -30/+20Buried as Inaccurate. There is nothing here that is illegal or unconstitutional. The right to Petition the government for redress doesn't equate to heckling the President.
    • darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I think it's the definition.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11check the 1st amendment, the right to peaceably assembly.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Nowhere does the Constitution say you get to 'peaceably assemble' wherever you feel like. Also, I doubt the intenion of many groups to 'peaceably' assemble.
        • SweetMercury, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You know those pesky "amendments?" Have you read the first one?

          I don't recall a qualifier on the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause. Perhaps you can point out where it says "except when the people disagree with the president" or "wherever the Advance Team doesn't want people to exercise this right?"
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1So, why are the protesters seeking to disrupt the peaceful assembly of others? The "Advance" team is made up of civilian volunteers. They are ejecting people from a private function... much as a restaurant owner would throw out rowdy patrons.
    • SweetMercury, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3But it's within the purview of the executive branch to thwart dissent, clandestinely spread disinformation, and stage false "counter protests?" The last thing alone is counter to republican government.
  • indyhouse, on 10/11/2007, -24/+14Anyone who thinks the Clinton administration didn't have one of these is living in a dream world. Except in Clinton's it includes courses of action like "make it look like a suicide."
    • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Source? Proof? Biased assumption?
      • Me1000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Biased Assumption?
        more like ***** lie!
    • marduk34, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2ya, and in Bush's it just says take them to Guantanamo
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6But, but Clinton!!11!!1 It's wrong, it's immoral, regardless of who does it.
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"Except in Clinton's it includes courses of action like "make it look like a suicide.""

      See, now there you just stepped over the line.

      *smacks indyhouse on the back of the head for doing more harm than good*
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5b b b but clinton!
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1HAHAHA! What an idiot.

      This is the neocons: "Our guy got caught for the 140th time being a completely lame poser. Quick! Blame Clinton! WHAAAAAAAA! Clinton did it! Whaaaa!"

      You right wing nuts are simply astounding.

      I am a republican but not a neocon. I am going to support (with money and time) anyone but the republican party until the racist, fascist neocons are completely pushed out of power.
  • phillymozart, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3If you are going to have well financed, organized protests everywhere about everything, then I expect my elected local, state, and federal officials to be at the top of their game in policing the protesters. It really is that simple.
    • JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Did you just say POLICING THE PROTESTERS? Wtf are you from?
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should look the word up before you blow a gasket. Or is your intent to intentionally misconstrue a ststement even though you know what was meant?
  • sh0k, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12It would not be so bad if this were, say, a memo from Rush Limbaugh to his friends in anticipation of a rally. But a government document that lays out methods of Free Speech suppression, as well as calling for roaming groups of "young/college republicans" to harass demonstrators?

    ***** it, I'm joining the SDS.
  • UtahApocalyse, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16So I guess we now know who the 23% are that still support bush..... his paid for stooges.
  • enzideout, on 10/11/2007, -14/+10Yeah its just a link from the other article on digg talking about something similar. buried as a dupe. BTW, you guys know this document existed before 2002 right? Its not like its something they just created for Bush. Its something they created for the President. Stop the liberal bull *****.
    • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7While I am not a liberal (I am a Libertarian), STOP THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE *****.
      • enzideout, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1While I admit that this document applies to President Bush. I'm just saying that it hasn't ONLY applied to him. It would be much like saying the Constitution only applies to me, when in reality it has applied to all US citizens since its existence.
    • JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4 What proof do you have that these guidelines existed before 2002? Please educate us.
      • enzideout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I stand corrected. I can't currently find any proof that this document existed before 2002.
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -15/+21The title is absolute *****. This is a PR document and how to handle yourself and people that are trying to get in and DISRUPT an event. I'd wager that EVERY official in the US Government has documents similar to this one.

    And there is nothing illegal about this. This is basically a document that says that the president is at an event in some capacity... usually a speech. He's not there to handle hecklers.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9these events are paid for with tax payer dollars. they are public events. the 1st amendment isn't just about free speech, it's also about assembly. your argument that this is just about hecklers is *****. the document talks about how to disperse and hide protests even outside the event, to make sure it's not seen by the media. basically they want to use our tax dollars to further their propaganda and don't want americans to get in the way of it.
      • triphop, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3thcobbs is a paid shill. One of the many that roam the interwebs.
      • mablco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3oh, well then now we know their tactics, the demonstrators need to be prepared for their preparedness. id try to get a ticket as an "extremely supportive" fan and then bust out with my super big folded fabric sign.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1pintomp3

        You say "these events". What events are you speaking of? Are you ignorant of the fact that the president almost always appears at *private* functions? You are simply, factually wrong. There are not tax-payer funded events.
        • NormalVisual, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, they are. The C-17 and C-5 full of Secret Service equipment (armored Suburbans, etc.) that get flown in the day before the visit are *not* paid for by a private party. Air Force One and its support costs are not borne by a private party. Neither are the dozens of local law enforcement officers that secure the roadways and bridges between the airport and the event venue and provide additional escorts for the presidential motorcade. And sure as hell no one is paying the local citizens for the time and trouble the visit causes them in the form of roadblocks and other disruptions to their daily lives.

          Bush really likes to visit the Orlando area, so I've been through more than my fair share of dealing with State Road 528 and other parts of the city being turned upside down every time he feels like coming down here to support a pet cause or candidate.
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you understand the difference between the necessary entourage a president has and the activities he engages in as a private citizen?

            The *events* are private, all the security etcetera is beside the point. It is the *events* that people are being excluded from as private event organizers have a right to do.
  • FRANKeB, on 10/11/2007, -15/+18This president could be standing in the middle of a crowded room, pull out a gun and shoot someone standing next to him right in the ***** face, then watch the guy gargle his last breath and then wait for the smoke from the gun nozzle to dissipate before he puts it back into his pocket and still, nobody in America would do a ***** thing about it.

    George Bush has repeatedly called the bluff of America's 'nobody ***** with us' motto and won time and time again. What the ***** is it going to take for the American people to deal with this problem?

    I hate to say it but I am almost beginning to admire him. Why? Because everyone in the world, including myself has laughed at him, mocked him, stated how stupid he is etc. Who's the stupid one(s)? Looks to me like he outsmarted all you mofo's and when you catch him, he looks you in the face and says, 'And just WTF are you going to do about it?'

    So, tell me, what ARE you going to do about it?
    • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Hmmm... Civil War II?
    • an0nymous, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3I am going to make a smarmy comment about how it's "muzzle" not "nozzle".
      Thanks for asking!
    • tsotha, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Bush was never stupid. He's actually a pretty bright guy who likes to lull other people into thinking he's stupid because it gives him a tactical advantage. Anybody who went to school with him will tell you that.

      The beautiful part is the one thing you can always convince a lefty of is he's the smartest guy in the room, no matter how stupid he is. How many times does Bush have to outmaneuver his political opponents before they realize what they're dealing with? My guess is they'll never realize it, because their egos won't let them.
    • Stormflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Impeach now.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3When you come up with a valid analogy, I'd like to hear it. As it stands, basically you're just a loon.
  • vlekk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23I'm taking a stand...anything with "Title says it all." in the description now gets buried.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm with you. Title doesn't even begin to say it all.
    • GauteHauk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hilarious and I must agree it's dumb as hell, but I wouldn't bury everything for it. Just don't dig up articles with "Title says it all."

      Only bury articles where the title does not, in fact, say it all.
  • wolfie8914, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3It's really just a shame that this administration puts so much effort into holding a guise of "oh everything's okay and wonderful, everybody loves the president!" over the American public.
  • cptn_cardboard, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6[redacted] you, bush.
  • NutsaQer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3How can I get the Republican National Committee to pay my college loans off since they wanna raise the interest rates so high. [redacted] you Bush!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Waaaaah. Your interest rates are lower than the ones I paid in the 90s. Get over it. Did you really need that Apple iPhone?
  • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9@Zoltair
    no, we're not paranoid. we just recognize propaganda campaigns when we see them. does that not bother you? that you're own country is crushing dissent every chance it gets? HOW CAN THIS NOT BOTHER YOU PEOPLE? i just dont get how people arent pissed about this. even if you still support Bush, this is blatant oppression!
    • minox, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Yeah, just the other day I was protesting outside the White House and a secret service agent just shot me dead just for holding a sign. (This message has been brought to you by my ghost.)
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Dude, so, when thousand of people gather to protest vasious aspects of the Bush administration... and no one does a thing to prevent it, that is evidence of *what*?

      Try a little objectivity. Bush has a right to speak to private assemblies without disruption just as you do. That is all this document does... lays out the measures necessary to allow this to happen.

      Ejecting disruptive people from private functions is not oppression, it's a right we all have. This is identical to a restaurant owner telling someone to leave.
  • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2So am I breaking federal law by reading this? XD
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1yep, and we're all goin to gitmo for talkin about it!
    • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Who wants to play tic tac toe?
  • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Must be a slow newsweek... the amount of dupes is just nuts -- as soon as something falls off the front page or the top-10 (heck, sometimes even before that), the exact same story pops up again... 5 days in a row...
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3maybe all of us dont constantly check digg and make sure there arent duplicates...
      • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3True enough, but on at least two occasions the last few days, one and the same story has been been represented in *three* different submissions on the front page at once (generally two in the "Newly Popular", and one in the Top 10).

        If dupes happen on submission, I can understand it, but why on earth people keep digging the exact same story three times in a row, when it is obvious that the topic already exists, is a bit more of a mystery...
        • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3probably to get the word out on a certain subject. i would guess political stories get more duplicates.
    • minox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I thought this story was better last night the first time I saw it.
  • 0ddity, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2BREAKING: The emperor has no clothes!
  • rytyshy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I have a feeling the copy of the constitution that the president uses has lots of these redacted sections too.
  • luftrofl, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I hardly think that this is illegal. A bit dickish, if anything. Don't get me wrong, I hope Bush chokes on another pretzel and dies but please look at it this way- how would ANYBODY get anything done at a rally that has a bunch of loud, annoying people in the front row?
  • faskippy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0Anyone else having the diggs buttons mess up on them? Don't know what the hell's going on, but I click to digg up, and the number of diggs doesn't change. I click to digg down, and it changes it by two. I just clicked to digg someone up, and hell, it dugg them down. I wrote digg already a couple days ago, let's see if they do anything. Is it just me???
    • 0ddity, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Its you being an idiot. Yeah, sometimes, when you click dig up, someone else clicked dig down, hence it doesn't change. Or you both digg up, etc.
  • akusuma, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Alternative Link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M5TT52ZT
  • sensibledriver, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Oh noes!!!! This is the first time this has ever happened and now it it exposed!!! These people are pure evil; all eyes on them while the other group goes about their business, which must be all for the good of the people. Right...right?


    Wake up, sheeple.
  • Venste, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8What's so crazy about this? Seems like a normal document to me.
    • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Indeed, it is a document. With words. However, after a couple of years in grade school you might be able to pick up on what exactly is crazy about this. READ IT. :p
  • 3n7r0py, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9Some of you morons need to stop arguing over our masturbatory "seperate" political parties. NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY CARES ABOUT WE THE PEOPLE. Republicans and Democrats are two fascist wings on the same bird of tyranny.
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4how can you asume this is Dems vs. Republicans? most people i know that protest dont put themself in either party, they actually despise BOTH parties.
  • DiggDuggDugged, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Great to see that they put more thought and effort into this document than into the pre- and post-war planning for Afghanistan and Iraq. Priorities, priorities...
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1And you are qualified to judge the panning efforts for those conflicts due to your extensive experience with....?
  • echinda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19The part that the ACLU alleges is illegal is the fact that dissent is "cleansed" from a public space. In their words:

    "When taxpayers foot the bill for a public event, the president does not have the right to use a partisan litmus test to stack the audience with his political supporters."

    Link to ACLU press release: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html
    • tr0gd0rr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Thank you. You give some actual useful information. An inflammatory title with a title-says-it-all description for a 12-page pdf is ridiculous!
      • Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, this needs to stop... I sick of tired of reading articles or documents without any citations, or references. Especially in matters of the law, it usually is a bit more useful
  • MeanYogurt, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4You can't use your free speech to stifle someone else from speaking. Anyone who watched the President's inauguration speech would realize the need for this. It was disgraceful to watch the protesters interrupting the president. Its alright to disagree with someone, but when you actively try and disrupt a man from speaking at his own inauguration, you've crossed the line to fascism and intolerance.
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3so if Bush used his free speech to stifle others free speech, would that be considered fascism? try seeing it from both sides.
      • danheskett, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The difference is that no demostrator has the right to interrupt and shout down someone else. Make no mistake that is the goal of most protestors-- I know, I've been there. Your whole point is to disrupt, get as much attention as possible, and be a nusiance to the target. That's the whole point.

        Having a strategy to deal with hecklers is straightforward and appropriate. No one has a constitutional right to disrupt anothers political rally.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Due to the fact that Bush makes apperences at pre-planed, usually private events, that event and his speech has precedence. The same happen with parades. Here in Denver, there is an Itallian-sponsored "Columbus day" parade. It is always protested by native American groups. If those protesters block the path of the parade, the police arrest them and remove them.

        Those same native American groups are free to express themselves any time else, anywhere else, they just aren't allowed to interrupt planned events. Now then, back you your silly comparison. mdkoch84. Find for me an example of the president interrupting someone else's assembly.
  • TexanRudeBoy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Don't be naive people. Bush is a criminal, but these "guidelines" are probobly the same for any president (or any political figure for that matter). That is what politics are, plain and simple.
    • stealthrocket, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Agreed. They are slimy for sure but I don't think there's anything illegal about this. Keep your eye on the ball people.
    • dn11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree with you - it's still eye opening
  • faskippy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Notice your digg numbers when you digg someones comment. Mine are changing the wrong way. I posted a notice a couple minutes ago asking if anyone else noticed the numbers can't be trusted, and it's gone now. Anyone???
  • Thorox, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Well, the Digg Bush haters are out in force today. Are you trying to say that since the President is a public servant that they do not need to take measures to protect him? You know what happens to the people who throw pies if one hits the President? This document is more about preventing people of an opposing viewpoint ("possible threats") from entering the proximity of the person to be protected.

    If someone is protesting YOU outside YOUR house, are you going to invite them in? Or are you going to call the police and have them removed for trespassing?

    This is the most blatent Bush hating, ignorant posting thread I have ever seen on Digg... pay attention to the REAL issues, not some sensational headline... and read the material before posting your idiotic bush hating crap.
    • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Maybe Bush should try harder to be a good public servant, throwing pies might actually make him accountable.
    • logomancer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"You know what happens to the people who throw pies if one hits the President?"

      Because gods know Mr. Bush, despite having the full might of the US military, Secret Service, and FBI behind him, will burst into flames if someone attacks him with custard.

      "If someone is protesting YOU outside YOUR house, are you going to invite them in? Or are you going to call the police and have them removed for trespassing?"

      Big difference: I own (or occupy) the land just outside my house. The President doesn't own the space he's speaking at.

      "This document is more about preventing people of an opposing viewpoint ('possible threats') from entering the proximity of the person to be protected."

      It's a sad day when those in power declare that those who disagree with us "dangerous". That's not far from fascism.

      It's also about keeping dissenters away from the cameras. In my book, sending paid groups of groupies around to drown out protestors and shifting the opposition to "free speech zones" is an attempt at engineering propaganda using free news coverage. That's immoral at the very least. To me, it's about as illegal as those video news segments promoting the Medicare reforms that the goverment bought some time back.

      You use bad analogies and a need to protect the president as reasons to quash demonstrations, and neither are justifiable in my eyes. Perhaps you should think before accusing us of Bush bashing.
    • mtbaldyred, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0thorox, I'm not aware that the president acting as a public servant has a right to eliminate opposing or dissenting views. If people have dissenting views at his private birthday party, or his xmas day celebration, then how he deals with them is his business. We are talking here about the staging of the elimination of freedom of speech in a public event. May be natural to want this if you want to rule, but it is not very desirable in a country that is a democracy.
  • bearde, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4This is neither illegal nor surprising. There's a lot of legitimate reasons to complain about the current administration, but this is not one of them. Stop grasping at straws.
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This isn't "grasping at straws". This is grasping at a REAL policy used by the Bush administration to stifle the rights of citizens to exercise their freedom of speech and to petition their government with their grievances.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1These are private functions. You do not have a right to dance on the table at your local restaurant... you will get thrown out. Bush is not just "the government", he is still a free citizen with the same rights you have... as do the organizers of these events. They have the same rights to remove people as a restaurant owner does.

        If you want to petition the government, there are street corners and court-house steps everywhere in this country. You can hang out in front of the White House. You may exercise your own rights where you are not infringing on the rights of others.
        • aeoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If it's just private functions, why do you need a manual? Private functions are already well protected under the law without the need to create fake grass-roots support groups.
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Your question is invalid because it is a *fact* that it is a private function. There is not "if". If they prefer using these tactics to sicking security on these protesters, that's their business. It probably has something to do with trying to avoid footage of security having to deal with these protesters.
      • bearde, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do you even know what "grasping at straws" means? It means that, when one lacks ground on which to stand, one throws out any argument available, regardless of how relevant, legitimate, or substantiated that argument may be. The point is that there ARE legitimate reasons to complain, but this seriously isn't one of them. It's nothing that any other president (or, for that matter, public figure) doesn't do on a regular basis. "Stacking" crowds might seem immoral, but it's certainly neither uncommon or illegal, nor is it any sort of attack on your freedom of speech. Do you have any idea the number of freedoms you actually enjoy in this country? How about the freedom to post UNINFORMED crap on digg.com? I'm not a Bush supporter by any means, but that doesn't mean I'm going to resort to childish attacks on non-issues. If anything, it detracts from the focus on the REAL issues worth discussing.
  • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Liberty and Open Government: Redacted
  • Dhalsim007, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Dugg down as innaccurate ... private event managers are allowed to control their environment in any way they'd like, and it's not illegal. I'm sure the event terms are clearly stated on the event ticket. Try holding up a sign at a sporting event saying a certain player on the home team is gay or "sucks", etc. You'll be asked to leave very quickly... Same applies here.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3so you view our government as a private event? sadly, you may be right.
      • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Many of the speaking events that bush goes to are in fact private events.
    • bunnyhop45, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2He's the friggin President, you moron, not some corporate employee-were you asleep during the social studies class in high school? Although it seems the executive branch and big business are one and the same
  • transpyre, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10I'm sure Clinton had one too.

    But his would have had a special section stating that all hotties in mini-skirts and low-cut shirts be placed in the front row.
    • choppers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2maybe he did, whats your point?
    • echinda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1As long as he didn't discriminate between democrat and republican hotties ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.